Torture file closed on the grounds '7 years have passed'

2024-12-26 12:17:19


	ISTANBUL - Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office issued a decision of non-prosecution in a torture file, which is not subject to statute of limitations, on the grounds that 7 years have passed since the incident. 

	Hamza Doğrul, who was detained and arrested in Istanbul Bahçelievler in December 2017, was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment on charges of "being an illegal organization member" and "attempting to overthrow the constitutional order". Doğrul, who is being held in Antalya High Security Prison, filed a criminal complaint to the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against the police officers who tortured him 7 years later due to being tortured during his detention. Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which examined the criminal complaint filed by Doğrul's lawyer Nagehan Avçil on 9 September, decided not to prosecute the case of torture, which is not subject to statute of limitations since it is within the scope of crimes against humanity, on the grounds that 7 years have passed since the incident.

	 

	'SHE WAS NOT TAKEN TO FORENSIC EXAMINATION FOR 4 DAYS'

	 

	In the application made by lawyer Avçil, it was pointed out that according to the forensic examination report of Doğrul, redness (ecchymosa) was seen on his back, arm and under his left eye after violence. In the application, it was noted that Doğrul was not allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer for 7 days in detention, and that forensic general examination reports confirm that Doğrul was tortured during the 12 days he was in detention. "The fact that no general forensic medical examination report was included in the file for 4 days between 14 December 2017 and 18 December 2017 and that the general forensic medical examination report dated 18 December 2017 showed signs of beating and force clearly shows that the client was subjected to torture in the detention unit," the application said.

	 

	'THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TORTURE'

	 

	In the application, it was emphasised that while there were no signs of beating and force when Doğrul was brought to the detention unit, it was clear that the beating and force marks that occurred during his detention were caused by the torture of the security forces, "According to the Turkish Penal Code, based on the provision that the statute of limitations does not run for this offence, we have been obliged to submit this complaint petition." In the application, it was requested that the camera recordings of the period be examined and a public case be opened against those concerned.

	 

	The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which finalised the application in 12 days, ruled that there was no ground for prosecution on the grounds that 7 years had passed since the incident.

	 

	THE DECISION WAS APPEALED

	 

	Against the prosecutor's decision, Doğrul's lawyer Nagehan Avçil filed an appeal to Istanbul Criminal Judgeship of Peace. In the application, it was stated that the decision of the prosecutor's office in a short period of 12 days was evidence that an "effective investigation" was not carried out, and it was emphasised that the prosecutor's office rejected the crime of torture, which is not subject to statute of limitations, by stating that "7 years have passed". It was stated in the appeal application that the prosecutor's office based its decision on the grounds of "lack of conclusive, convincing and concrete evidence", which is also in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPL). Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that a decision of "no prosecution" can be made on the grounds of "insufficient suspicion". However, it was emphasised in the application that the prosecutor's office based its decision on "lack of definite, convincing and conclusive evidence", and that the grounds on which the prosecutor's office based its decision were the conditions required for a conviction, and that the decision was therefore contrary to the law.

	 

	In the application, it was stated that the prosecutor's office's decision of 'no prosecution' in 12 days, when it should have made a decision in line with the forensic examination reports submitted to the file, showed that it was not a decision made as a result of a legal evaluation.

	 

	In the application requesting the acceptance of the objection to the "no prosecution" decision of the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, it was requested that an effective investigation be carried out and an indictment be issued against the suspects who committed the crime of torture.

	 

	MA / Ömer İbrahimoğlu